Neutrality is the Answer - They Didn't Attack Switzerland

[USMC the Almighty]

This thread is doomed for the political humour section at this rate.

Especially if Roker keeps linking to gay porn.

 

[Rokerijdude11]

Do you ever READ?


I plain and simple told you what happened on the last page ???????????/??????? .....was that a picture of YOU? you sure seem at this point to be fitting the description!!!!!!!!!!!

for all of you who didnt read my reason for edit on that photo

I HOTLINKED A PHOTO OF A SHETLAND PONY..THERE WAS A SCRIPT AT THAT WEBSITE DESIGNED SO THAT IF YOU HOT LINKED THE PHOTO WOULD BE REPLACED bY A


PHOTOSHOPPED PHOTO OF SOME GUYS A@@HO*E IT WAS NASTY AND I REMOVED IT AS SOON AS IT CHANGED FROM ITS ORIGINAL PHOTO

 

[9sublime]

chill your beans i think he was joking.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

:d :d :d ??????????


they didnt like my hot-link id guess!!!! wow DISTURBING!!!!!!!!!!!

sorry THEY CHANGED IT ILL RE-LOAD what I posted


I AM SORRY EVERYONE HOTLINKING WASNT ALLOWED THEY PUT A NASSSSSSSSSTY PHOTO IN ITS PLACE I CORRECTED IT

That's not the shetland pony rider. That pony is way too big...

(And glad I missed the original photo...LOL)

 

[palerider]

You're the one attacking the character of the Swiss. Answer the question:

You're own source says 20,000 were allowed in while 25,000 were turned away. That's almost half allowed to safety. (Not to mention those aided by private swiss citizens who ignored their government's policy.) Seems like a very generous allowance during an all out war when every country around you has been conquered. Why are you avoiding my question, shetland pony rider? I'll ask it again: Would you want America to accept 200,000 people during a war if you knew it would drain our resources to the point that we would be invaded and defeated?

Once again, the premise of this thread was not about immigration. It was about why you believed that the swiss didn't get attacked by germany. It is clear that the swiss were not neutral. They supplied hitler with a steady stream of marks in exchange for plundered nazi gold. They didn't get attacked because they were hitler's bankers.

 

[palerider]

That's not the shetland pony rider. That pony is way too big...

(And glad I missed the original photo...LOL)

And this is your idea of humor? The dope really has taken its toll on you hasn't it? Posting pictures and hurling insult in lieu of actual debate?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Once again, the premise of this thread was not about immigration.

Once again, you cannot answer a valid question. You had no trouble criticizing Swiss immigration policy earlier... Funny how you only have a problem answering questions when they prove your position to be fallacious...

 

[Truth-Bringer]

And this is your idea of humor?

No, it's his idea of how you actually look in real life.

 

[Dave]

Something just occured to me. Norway was neutral during WWII and they DID get attacked. Kind of goes against the premise of the thread doesn't it? Or have we gotten too far off topic for this now?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Something just occured to me. Norway was neutral during WWII and they DID get attacked. Kind of goes against the premise of the thread doesn't it? Or have we gotten too far off topic for this now?

However, Norway was neutral during WW1 and they DIDN'T get attacked in that war...

Regarding the second world war, Hitler's decision to attack them during WWII was actually thought about over a course of months. They almost didn't take the chance. But Norway's problem wasn't that they were neutral, it's that they weren't neutral and demonstrably strong also. One cannot be a neutral passivist. One must be neutral, fortified, and have a heavily armed populace and a strong military.

The Swiss actually invited German generals into their country to observe their defenses. One of the Nazi generals later stated "We shall leave the little porcupine alone."

From the following link we see the Norwegians were not truly prepared for war as the Swiss were:

"The imminent threat of war in the late 1930s brought defence issues into the forefront of Norwegian political debate. The socialists had previously strongly opposed granting funds to the military, and were partly supported in this view by the Liberals."

We see also from the same source: "In occupied Norway civilian resistance grew from year to year. Secret military forces were also assembled and constituted something of a threat to the Germans." So they did start fighting back, but they were not prepared for this sort of resistance from the beginning. The Swiss were.

 

[Dave]

However, Norway was neutral during WW1 and they DIDN'T get attacked in that war...

Regarding the second world war, Hitler's decision to attack them during WWII was actually thought about over a course of months. They almost didn't take the chance. But Norway's problem wasn't that they were neutral, it's that they weren't neutral and demonstrably strong also. One cannot be a neutral passivist. One must be neutral, fortified, and have a heavily armed populace and a strong military.

The Swiss actually invited German generals into their country to observe their defenses. One of the Nazi generals later stated "We shall leave the little porcupine alone."

From the following link we see the Norwegians were not truly prepared for war as the Swiss were:

"The imminent threat of war in the late 1930s brought defence issues into the forefront of Norwegian political debate. The socialists had previously strongly opposed granting funds to the military, and were partly supported in this view by the Liberals."

We see also from the same source: "In occupied Norway civilian resistance grew from year to year. Secret military forces were also assembled and constituted something of a threat to the Germans." So they did start fighting back, but they were not prepared for this sort of resistance from the beginning. The Swiss were.

Or, Norway simply could have gotten onboard with the Allies in the beginning and saved themselves a lot of trouble. There wasn't enough funding in the world that would have gotten Norway ready for a full German invasion. Norway had something the Germans wanted (heavy water) and the Germans were going to take it, regardless of what Norway did. A strong military is a deterrent, but if you have something the enemy wants, he's going to try to take it. Even if Norway had improved its military, it wouldnt have had a chance against the German army. Norway was simply a more important military target than Switzerland. If the Germans had actually put enough research time into their own atom bomb, taking Norway could have been their key to winning the war. Only after they had done some research did they realize that they couldn't complete a nuclear program by the end of the war.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Even if Norway had improved its military, it wouldnt have had a chance against the German army.

You mean the same German army that relied on a 1,250,000 horses and even continued to use a horse cavalry?

From "World War 2, The Rest of the Story" by Richard Maybury: "A little known fact is that the Germans actually had two armies. One was the high tech mechanized force you have seen so often in movies. The aircraft, tanks, and artilleries are impressive, no doubt about it. But this force was small. It was only the tip of the spear. The rest of the spear, the main body of the army, was foot soldiers and horses. Yes, horses. When Hitler's massive invasion force was poised on the Soviet frontier in June 1941, it was at its peak. Lined up ready to strike at Stalin were 3,350 tanks. And 650,000 horses. Hollywood devotes a lot of film to the tanks, but how often have you seen the thousands of horses? Most of the horses were used as substitutes for trucks, but the Germans did have a horse cavalry division that was thrown against the Russians. (In contrast) when the British and Americans invaded Normandy in June 1944, they were fully mechanized, while the German army was still dependent on 1,250,000 horses."

If the Germans had actually put enough research time into their own atom bomb, taking Norway could have been their key to winning the war. Only after they had done some research did they realize that they couldn't complete a nuclear program by the end of the war.

You mean the same Germans who didn't even have the engineering skills to construct a single aircraft carrier?:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=740

Meanwhile the U.S. built 146 of them in 44 months.

 

[Dave]

Even with Norway's depleted military, Germany committed over 107,000 troops, and 20,000 vehicles, 109,000 tons of supplies, and yes, 16,000 horses, to this invasion. That's not even mentioning the massive naval effort involved. If they needed more for the invasion, they would have got more. Do you really think Norway could have stood up to that even if they had bulked up their military? Heavy water is critical to the early stages of nuclear weapons. Norway is one of the few places you can get it occuring naturally. My point isn't that Norway couldn't defend itself. My point is that Norway had something the Germans wanted, and even if it took the entire German Army to gain control of Norway's vast heavy water resources, Germany was going to take it. If you have something that the enemy wants, nothing, and I mean nothing, is going to get you out of a fight.

 

[vyo476]

You mean the same German army that relied on a 1,250,000 horses and even continued to use a horse cavalry?

From "World War 2, The Rest of the Story" by Richard Maybury: "A little known fact is that the Germans actually had two armies. One was the high tech mechanized force you have seen so often in movies. The aircraft, tanks, and artilleries are impressive, no doubt about it. But this force was small. It was only the tip of the spear. The rest of the spear, the main body of the army, was foot soldiers and horses. Yes, horses. When Hitler's massive invasion force was poised on the Soviet frontier in June 1941, it was at its peak. Lined up ready to strike at Stalin were 3,350 tanks. And 650,000 horses. Hollywood devotes a lot of film to the tanks, but how often have you seen the thousands of horses? Most of the horses were used as substitutes for trucks, but the Germans did have a horse cavalry division that was thrown against the Russians. (In contrast) when the British and Americans invaded Normandy in June 1944, they were fully mechanized, while the German army was still dependent on 1,250,000 horses."





You mean the same Germans who didn't even have the engineering skills to construct a single aircraft carrier?:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=740

Meanwhile the U.S. built 146 of them in 44 months.

You know, you're right. The German Army was really just an inept group of backwards idiots.

It's not like they conquered all of continental Europe or anything.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

You know, you're right. The German Army was really just an inept group of backwards idiots.

It's not like they conquered all of continental Europe or anything.

This only means the rest of continental Europe was even more inept. The Germans could have never held Europe very long. And the defeat in Russia secured their demise. They would have foolishly never quit trying to expand.

Since an army becomes weaker as it occupies more territory, they would have eventually collapsed regardless.

The root truth is this - if people fail to resist being conquered, they will be conquered. If they want to resist be conquered, they will fight to the death. If everyone fought the Germans to the death, then there would have been no slaves to capture afterwards...now would there...

And thus less resources to "fuel" the German army. Not that slaves could mass produce anything on par with America though.